Email Topic

Recipient Email Address(es):

Personal Message (Optional):

What should happen with U.S. government subsidies of renewable energy development?

Renewable energy still hasn't outgrown criticisms that have dogged it for years: It remains too expensive to compete head-to-head with fossil fuels, and it is too dependent on government subsidies. Most renewable energy faces another major obstacle. Much of it remains intermittent—and technical advances that could make it a reliable, full-time power provider remain elusive.

What do you think? Is the U.S. supporting the development of the renewable energy industry adequately, or undercutting it by permitting so much natural gas drilling? Or should the federal government pull back its subsidies, and let the new technology find its own footing?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The subsidies should only be reserves for oil, gas & coal, fuels that will last for ever. Wind & Solar are temporary. Who know when we might run out of Solar energy. Besides, if we use them, we will need to convert that energy to storage batteries. That technology is no good right now. Why should we invest in research. Let Chinese take the lead. We can always buy it from them. And if those ____ charge us too much, we can attack them and them out of this earth and then take over their technology. At present all we need to do is - drill baby drill and tax cuts for the rich.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Global warming is a low priority problem. Because its progress is slow, we can adapt to its effects far easier than we can prevent them. The science is poorly understood: No theory has been offered that explains why global temperatures DROPPED from 1934 to 1974, despite the huge growth of CO2 in the atmosphere during WW II and postwar industrial growth and population doubling. NONE of the models used by the UN IPCC explains why temperatures have plateaued since 1998. The premature replacement of electric generating capital with wind farms and solar INCREASES CO2 emissions in the short run, because none if those "green" sources can be used in industrial and heavy transportation and construction applications. Even the advocates admit it would take until 2050 or even 2100 before we would see a net decrease in CO2 from these projects, let alone a decrease in temperature. And the actual magnitude of any energy projects that are economically feasible would only affect 1% of global CO2 production! China has an.insatiable need for coal for its powerplants, and nothing the US does will alter that. There are ten or twenty problems around the world, like AIDS, and malaria, that are far more urgent, and would respond far faster to an investment of resources. We should continue to study climate, so we understand it and can intervene more effectively and efficiently with the best science and future technology. We should also recognize that geologically the earth is overdue for another ice age, which would have much more devastating effects on human civilization and the ecosystem than any foreseeable global warming.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The claim by global warming partusans that their opponrnts are "anti-science" is hypocritical, because they don't eant the publuc to understand the natural role of CO2 in the sustenance of life on earth. CO2 and water vapor and oxygen are tightly bound in sustaining all life on earth. Every animal, including himans, exhale CO2, while every carbon based.molecule in the bodies of plants AND animals comes from carbon in the atmosphere. If CO2 were to drop too far, life on earth would collapse. The one proven method of responding to increased CO2 is to grow more plants and trees that actively collect it from the air. If you buy a paper book and place.it on your shelf, you have sequestered carbon taken from the atmosphere. We should.increase use of wood and paper in long term infrastructure and buildings. Creating value is what makes something sustainable.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Subsidies should only be made if the developers/supporters can provide reasonable proof that the technology can be compeditive against current energy supplies given some initial support for a few years to get it underway. All the current renewables (solar, wind, wave, earth thermal, etc.) fail miserably in that regard, and there is no realistic prospect for improvement. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, if a case can be made that it can be managed and controlled, would be a different story, and would justify some amount of government subsidy. On the other hand, when I was in physics at Georgia Tech 50+ years ago, the prof said it was at least 10 years away. Last I saw (a couple of years ago) it was said to be at least 30 years away, so I am not holding my breath.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Sam:We live on Cape Cod, MA. A privately owned firm, Cape Wind, has been trying to install offshore wind turbines here for about 10 years. They were doggedly fought by Sen Teddy Kennedy and thanks to him and a majority of local inhabitants, it hasn't gone anywhere SO FAR.. Cape Wind keeps up their fight. I'm afraid that $, the primary (and only motivation), and Prez O's alleged Green Support (More $?) will have a lot of Oomph! despite their turn downs to date. Quite honestly, we were most disappointed when we first learned of this. Right now we get our electricity from Canada and NY at cheaper rates than Cape Wind, Cape Wind can supply only Cape Cod (i.e., none goes to the mainland) with a maximum of 5% of PRESENT usage, has a negative impact on marine and avian life, navigation, AND is extremely noisy - up to a mile, and will require future UNDERWATER maintenance. Oh, P.S.: it's not all planned as offshore. Some of the project is planned for "unused beach spaces". Let me know if I forgot anything. Stephen R. Hammond

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Subsidies in general are harmful because they are designed to support ineffective solutions. In the case of wind power, the article by David Kreutzer misses the most important point of all: wind power actually isn't even "green". Because base line conventional production has to stay on line for when the wind isn't blowing, and has to constantly compensate for fluctuations in wind power, this can actually result an increase in fossil fuel use and carbon emissions. (This is similar to the effect of driving your car in stop and go traffic.) A number of studies support this, including one done for the Texas utility industry, ERCOT, by Bentek, analyzing the impact of the 2300 wind turbines they have there. The Irish, who have had a large number of on and off shore wind turbines for many years, came to a similar conclusion. So why are we even having this discussion about wind and solar? The only thing "green" about it is the money flowing out of our economy and further stifling industrial competitiveness and job growth.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The commercial wind turbine business has a dirty little secret : "gear box failures" These failures in multi-million dollar turbines only three years old are causing catastrophic failures costing the owners up to one million every three years to keep the turbines online.

One gear box company has had over 600 gear box failures. The megawatt turbines in Portsmouth,Rhode Island ,Princeton,Massachusetts and Otis Air Base on Cape Cod all have three year old catastrophic failures. Many feel the gear box failures have led to the catastrophic fires in the motors.

Now the wind industry after keeping the secret that the new turbines have direct drive units and don't breakdown ! Can you believe the ongoing bunco scheme ? These turbines only last three years !